The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

All forms of gambling should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,821 times Debate No: 14991
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Gambling -the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.

I am arguing that all forms of gambling should be made legal.


I will argue that regulated gambling should be the only gambling that is legal like Las Vagas.
This being that unregulated gambling rings can be made to cheat the players out of their money and have not even the slightest chance for winning, and scamming.
As well my opponent says all types of gambling so therefore must agree that betting your house and car etc as viable options.
As well he must argue that we should start a arena and have people fight to the death and gamble on the winner as he does say all forms of gambling.
This is from poker to whatever you could possible bet on, so we must say this could be a wide range of absurdities to anything which is immoral.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has made a few categorical errors. First, legality does not infer regulatory status. Again, I am arguing all forms of gambling should be legal, not unregulated. By 'forms' maybe he mistook it as meaning regulated or unregulated. For the novice, here is a general list of forms of gambling:

Sports betting
Card Games
Horse Track Gambling
Stock Market
Video Poker
Video keno/slots

Many of these are already made legal everywhere, such as insurance and investments. I am arguing that all other forms should be made legal everywhere as well. Again, regulation is not my argument, rather the legality. I do not have to agree that you can bet your house, as again, that is an issue of regulation. Fwiw, you already can in the market and I would not personally be against it, but that is not material in this debate. I, as well, must not argue for private corporations to open up arenas in which people fight to the death. One legal thing cannot beget another on its back. That is, legalizing gambling does not legalize the action of killing a person. Only the legalization of the wager is at hand, not what is being wagered on. Ie, wagering on a voluntary game of football is of no issue. On the other hand, opening up an illegal establishment, is not only clearly wrong-headed, but not material in this debate either.

Again, my opponent is, either innocently or purposefully, conflating the issues of legality and regulation. He is conflating the acts of wagering with such issues of what it is being wagered on (and thinking that we must open up illegal establishments to create something to wager on) and how much is wagered.


For one, you never set up the base for the debate seeing how the resolutions states : "ALL FORMS" of gambling should be legal this includes all forms of gambling which includes legal and Non-legal things as of right now.
Since you did not set up the debate i did, If you wanted to argue what you have stated now you should have changed your resolution.
Clearly what i have set up is valid seeing how the resolution says all forms and you must argue all forms.
Debate Round No. 2


Sorry, but 'forms of gambling' should be pretty commonsense. Go into any casino and ask 'what forms of gambling do you offer'. They won't look stunned not knowing what you mean. "Are they asking do we have unregulated forms of gambling??" According to you, I should have also defined 'money' 'goods' and 'primary intent' lest you get to define them in some absurd way yourself. If you were unclear of what a phrase meant, you should have asked for clear definition in the comment. Again, the phrase is pretty obvious. Do any search for forms of gambling and you will get something close to the list I provided, not legal, illegal, regulated, or unregulated.

As my opponent has given no clear argument, other than a conflation between legality and regulation and the action of wagering and what is being wagered on, I am left with little to rebuttal. I am finishing this last round by again repeating that con has not debated the position of pro, by avoiding the issue of legality.


My opponent did not argue that All forms of gambling should be legal therefore vote con
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rinexe 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Though the argument by pro on all forms does make sense, con did bring up a good point. The resolution does in fact say ALL FORMS of gambling and the only response by Pro to this was citing common sense, which is usually considered, "A bad source to cite." All forms would consider All Forms, and that could even be applied to Cock Fights. Con's argument on legality, though slightly clumsy, ends up winning on technicality.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Silly and not well presented semantic by Con.